Site C

[LordEd]

So for in excess of 30 years, the electricity will cost significantly less without the financing burden.

[Smurf]

Here are a couple of links from Ontario Hydro that I would say provide a better picture of costs in Ontario than the information given by butcher99.

http://www.ontario-hydro.com/current-rates



Note in the Average Electrical Bill by Province chart BC comes in 3rd (1000 KWH just below 90) while Ontario by their own admission comes in 8th (1000 KWH about 140). I'll take the 90 thank you.

http://www.ontario-hydro.com/electricit ... y-province

[erinmore3775]

Can SWEG totally supply our electrical needs or replace Site C

https://www.good.is/infographics/solar-power-all-of-america

This website regularly posts pro SWEG articles. Here is their answer to a similar question, but for the USA. "It would only take .6 percent of the surface area of the continental United States to power the entire country with renewable solar power? Just 11,200,000 acres to generate 4,000,000 GWh of clean energy?" Their answer is YES in theory, NO in practicality. The SWEG locations would have to be spread out to ensure that weather conditions would not adversely affect their electrical production. There would also have to be very significant battery storage capacity to ensure a 24 hour electrical supply. Theoretically feasible, but not economically practical.

https://skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-baseload-power.htm

"One of the more promising renewable energy technologies is concentrated solar thermal, which uses a system of mirrors or lenses to focus solar radiation on a collector. This type of system can collect and store energy in pressurized steam, molten salt, phase change materials, or purified graphite.

"The first test of a large-scale thermal solar power tower plant was Solar One in the California Mojave Desert, constructed in 1981. The project produced 10 megawatts (MW) of electricity using 1,818 mirrors, concentrating solar radiation onto a tower which used high-temperature heat transfer fluid to carry the energy to a boiler on the ground, where the steam was used to spin a series of turbines. Water was used as an energy storage medium for Solar One. The system was redesigned in 1995 and renamed Solar Two, which used molten salt as an energy storage medium. In this type of system, molten salt at 290ºC is pumped from a cold storage tank through the receiver where it is heated to about 565ºC. The heated salt then moves on to the hot storage tank. When power is needed from the plant, the hot salt is pumped to a generator."

Unfortunately, this is a very high-cost experimental project that has been plagued by leaks and corrosion. It also needs grid energy to supplement its need for electricity for its pumps and motors.

While some contributors point out the reduction in the cost of SWEG over the last ten years as the reason that SWEG can supply all of our electrical needs. Yet SWEG is non-dispatchable, non-synchronous. Solar does not provide electrical energy from dusk until dawn, a period of about 10 hours most places in BC. Wind mills do not work in the still air. A problem that occurs for the wind mills near Palm Springs the equivalent of about 20 days a year.

"...There are several types of renewable energy which can provide baseload power. It will be over a decade before we can produce sufficient intermittent renewable energy to require high levels of storage, and there are several promising energy storage technologies. One study found that the UK power grid could accommodate approximately 10-20% of energy from intermittent renewable sources without a "significant issue" Currently, Germany is a perfect example of this. Their electrical production is divided about 20% SWEG and 80% conventional with import agreements with neighbouring countries to cover the 20% SWEG if and when it fails to produce the required power. However, during most times Germany exports electricity to its neighbours largely due to their SWEG production. The exception being during the winter when conventional generation produces more electricity and SWEG less due to the weather conditions.

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=conventional&period=monthly&year=2017 German charts (daily, monthly, annually) on SWEG and conventional electrical generation and consumption

The cost of SWEG production is irrelevant to whether SWEG can provide 24/7 electricity. It can provide reliable supplementary power to the system as it does in Germany. Would it work as a supplementary power provider in BC? The answer is yes, however, using current cost estimates from verifiable sources in Canadian dollars, the SWEG alternative would cost more than Site C.

What I would recommend is that after or at the same time, Site C be developed along with SWEG supplemental programs. That way BC would be assured of relatively cheap electrical power (when compared to other places in North America) long into the future. What is most likely is that BC's electrical rates will be significantly lower than those of Ontario.

[maryjane48]

we do not want or need site c . only a fool would suggest we do

[butcher99]

Site C now costs more than either. .

This just isn't true. And will never ever be true.

Even a cursory search in the internet will show you this is in fact true. And with the cost of generation falling like a rock in the last year and expected to fall at least another 25% in the next 7 years it will only get better.
Best bet for Site C is between 80 and $100. Unless of course site C ends up ballooning in cost as every other hydro electric project has in the last 10 years. I am referring only to Site C. I am not talking about all the current dams.

From Environment Canada.
"Thanks to those initiatives, wind generation facilities in Ontario now help balance
the system and prevent nuclear shutdowns during periods of surplus base load generation. Wind dispatch helped avoid 19 of
these shutdowns in 2015."

"Wind energy is now the lowest-cost option for new electricity supply in most Canadian provinces. For example, contracts awarded in Hydro-Quebec’s most recent request for wind proposals, set a new low average price for wind in Canada of 6.3¢/kWh"

[butcher99]

Norway produces the most hydro power in Europe. 94%of their power comes from hydro. They use their dams exactly like I said we should use our existing hydro plants making the building of site C unnecessary.

"Norway generates about 95% of its electricity from
hydro, the highest percentage among developed
countries. With 29 GW of installed hydroelectric capacity,
over half of Europe’s hydropower is located in Norway.
This hydropower is partially used as a “battery” to
balance generation from intermittent renewables in
other European countries. Norway trades electricity
with Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, and Denmark."

[rustled]

Even a cursory search in the internet will show you this is in fact true. And with the cost of generation falling like a rock in the last year and expected to fall at least another 25% in the next 7 years it will only get better.
Best bet for Site C is between 80 and $100. Unless of course site C ends up ballooning in cost as every other hydro electric project has in the last 10 years. I am referring only to Site C. I am not talking about all the current dams.

From Environment Canada.
"Thanks to those initiatives, wind generation facilities in Ontario now help balance
the system and prevent nuclear shutdowns during periods of surplus base load generation. Wind dispatch helped avoid 19 of
these shutdowns in 2015."

"Wind energy is now the lowest-cost option for new electricity supply in most Canadian provinces. For example, contracts awarded in Hydro-Quebec’s most recent request for wind proposals, set a new low average price for wind in Canada of 6.3¢/kWh"

Hm. Perhaps this explains it, then. Cursory search, followed by cursory examination of results? Cherry-pick results to support desired narrative, then blend the information from two different sites, and present it as though it all came from a single source? The first quote is from a Government of Canada site:
https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc/lc ... d-eng.html
I'd be interested in knowing more about the nuclear shutdowns, but I doubt they have a lot to do with Site C.

Whereas the second quote is from CanWEA, "the voice of Canada’s wind energy industry, actively promoting the responsible and sustainable growth of wind energy".
http://canwea.ca/wind-facts/affordable-power/

Do the costs presented in this cherry-picked statement reflect full cost? What do they include?

[butcher99]

[
Hm. Perhaps this explains it, then. Cursory search, followed by cursory examination of results? Cherry-pick results to support desired narrative, then blend the information from two different sites, and present it as though it all came from a single source? The first quote is from a Government of Canada site:
https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc/lc ... d-eng.html
I'd be interested in knowing more about the nuclear shutdowns, but I doubt they have a lot to do with Site C.

Well you have to take that up with the government department that produced the report.

Yes, I forgot to add the link to the second one. It does not really matter though does it. I post a link from a group in favor of wind power and it could not possibly be true but then your side produces similar reports from sites against it and for some reason you feel that is ok.

Wind is cheaper and getting cheaper day by day as is solar. Like most technology as it improves it gets cheaper faster and faster.
Site C meanwhile is stuck at $80-$100 and nothing will change that. Unless and until the costs balloon as they have for every other hydro project in the last few years.

Site C. The same cost as the Bennett dam in todays dollars with only a third of the generating capacity and none of the holding capacity.

[rustled]

Norway produces the most hydro power in Europe. 94%of their power comes from hydro. They use their dams exactly like I said we should use our existing hydro plants making the building of site C unnecessary.

"Norway generates about 95% of its electricity from
hydro, the highest percentage among developed
countries. With 29 GW of installed hydroelectric capacity,
over half of Europe’s hydropower is located in Norway.
This hydropower is partially used as a “battery” to
balance generation from intermittent renewables in
other European countries. Norway trades electricity
with Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, and Denmark."

https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc/lc ... r-eng.html
This part sets the stage for the sidebar you've quoted from:

A major benefit of hydroelectricity is its reliability. In contrast to intermittent sources of renewable energy such as wind and solar, hydroelectric plants can produce electricity on demand and are recognized as system management assets capable of ensuring reliable supply.

The next part of the sidebar explains how Norway's hydroelectricity will help Germany and the UK deal with their intermittancy problems:

Two additional interconnections in advanced stages of development will enable the exchange of surplus wind and solar power generated in Germany and the UK with hydroelectric power produced in Norway.

What you're providing isn't proof we don't need Site C. It actually shows that others with well-developed wind and solar would likely develop Site C, if it was an option for them.

[rustled]

[
Hm. Perhaps this explains it, then. Cursory search, followed by cursory examination of results? Cherry-pick results to support desired narrative, then blend the information from two different sites, and present it as though it all came from a single source? The first quote is from a Government of Canada site:
https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc/lc ... d-eng.html
I'd be interested in knowing more about the nuclear shutdowns, but I doubt they have a lot to do with Site C.

Well you have to take that up with the government department that produced the report.

Yes, I forgot to add the link to the second one. It does not really matter though does it. I post a link from a group in favor of wind power and it could not possibly be true but then your side produces similar reports from sites against it and for some reason you feel that is ok.

Wind is cheaper and getting cheaper day by day as is solar. Like most technology as it improves it gets cheaper faster and faster.
Site C meanwhile is stuck at $80-$100 and nothing will change that. Unless and until the costs balloon as they have for every other hydro project in the last few years.

Site C. The same cost as the Bennett dam in todays dollars with only a third of the generating capacity and none of the holding capacity.

It shouldn't be about "sides", butcher99. We're all in this together.

Yes, it does matter where you're sourcing your quotes. Very much. CanWEA's job is to sell.

Several people have tried and tried to explain that you must include all costs, cradle-to-grave, in your comparisons, and yet you keep falling back on whatever tells you what you want to hear and processing only the parts you want to believe.

The holding capacity isn't the problem you're making it out to be. The objective of Site C is to make better use of what's in the much bigger reservoir upstream.

Go back and read the government website you've been quoting from. They spell out both the advantages and disadvantages of the various energy sources in a reasoned, rational way, but it's only useful if you read all of it and give full weight to the stuff you don't want to be true, as well as the stuff that helps you hold onto your convictions.

[Smurf]

rustled wrote:

butcher99 wrote:
Norway produces the most hydro power in Europe. 94%of their power comes from hydro. They use their dams exactly like I said we should use our existing hydro plants making the building of site C unnecessary.

"Norway generates about 95% of its electricity from
hydro, the highest percentage among developed
countries. With 29 GW of installed hydroelectric capacity,
over half of Europe’s hydropower is located in Norway.
This hydropower is partially used as a “battery” to
balance generation from intermittent renewables in
other European countries. Norway trades electricity
with Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, and Denmark."

https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc/lc ... r-eng.html
This part sets the stage for the sidebar you've quoted from:

A major benefit of hydroelectricity is its reliability. In contrast to intermittent sources of renewable energy such as wind and solar, hydroelectric plants can produce electricity on demand and are recognized as system management assets capable of ensuring reliable supply.

The next part of the sidebar explains how Norway's hydroelectricity will help Germany and the UK deal with their intermittancy problems:

Two additional interconnections in advanced stages of development will enable the exchange of surplus wind and solar power generated in Germany and the UK with hydroelectric power produced in Norway.

What you're providing isn't proof we don't need Site C. It actually shows that others with well-developed wind and solar would likely develop Site C, if it was an option for them.

Looks exactly like we are already doing with California and making good money doing it. It will be needed even more as more jurisdictions increase their intermittent sources if renewable energy. We have the opportunity to become the Norway of North America and make money doing it. It will also be ready for us as we need it even if it is 10, 20, 30 years away for peak demands, increased demand and to back up our own intermittent renewables as they come on line. Perfect example of why we need site C. Good info.

[mikest2]

I think the biggest problem we have in this thread is that we are trying to compare SWEG and Hydro electric generation. There is no comparison, they are entirely different things. Wind and solar are helper sources of asynchronous generation that could never be the backbone of a grid. The only way to make them into a backbone would be to use their generation (when available) to pump water into engineered reservoirs, stored, and then down the penstocks we go, through the turbines, and Bingo !!, synchronous, useful, non noisy generation that can be used when required. So, why do we bother with SWEG ? Why don't we just build reservoirs where we have water flow, and not waste money on solar and wind, and the transmission lines and substations required for them ? Because we seem to think we are going to save the planet with SWEG. I believe in the first law of thermodynamics, and despite what anyone tells me, if we remove thousands and thousands of megawatts from the wind, we WILL affect the weather. Stopping billions of photons from hitting the ground will also have an effect. There is no free lunch.

[butcher99]

Why don't we just build reservoirs where we have water flow, and not waste money on solar and wind, and the transmission lines and substations required for them ? Because we seem to think we are going to save the planet with SWEG. I believe in the first law of thermodynamics, and despite what anyone tells me, if we remove thousands and thousands of megawatts from the wind, we WILL affect the weather. Stopping billions of photons from hitting the ground will also have an effect. There is no free lunch.

Because we already have them in abundance in BC. Since wind and solar are now as cheap or cheaper and the price is falling lets move to new technology.

But I would say we have beaten the crap out of this.

[mikest2]

But I would say we have beaten the crap out of this.

I agree, we have, and I can't believe that you still don't get it. I make my living on big gearboxes (reducers if you prefer) and I will tell you in no uncertain terms, that the planetary boxes in those wind turbines will be rebuilt every 25,000 hours at the outside. The boxes I work on are a little smaller (only 500 to 1000kW), and they are about 35-50k$ parts only per rebuild. Factor in your oil changes of 250-300 l of gearlube every 5000 hours, I don't know what they got for main bearings on the house or rotor head. These things are a millwright's dream. Cha-ching, talk about high maintenance and remote locations. Yay !! Away pay !!

edit to add a zero i missed on oil chg hours

[hobbyguy]

butcher - wind and solar are NOT cheaper. We provide tons of data and you just keep spouting IPP and wind and solar industry garbage propaganda.

Did you actually look at the "California demand goose" I posted, the page 55? Do you have any clue what that means?

Plus your info on Ontario electricity rates is out of whack. This: https://issuu.com/hydroquebec/docs/comp_2016_en?e=1151578/39216309

Says 2016 average rates in Toronto are $.1615/kWh versus Vancouver at $.1070/kWh.

So the "new" July rates when down because of the "Fair Hydro Act" - which now subsidizes electricity rates. So the real rates have NOT gone down, the goofy Ontario government just tacked a subsidy onto its deficit. Sooner or later everybody has to pay for that!

http://www.airdberlis.com/insights/blogs/energyinsider/post/ei-item/regulations-published-to-implement-ontario-s-fair-hydro-plan

"Jun 22, 2017
Regulations Published to Implement Ontario's Fair Hydro Plan
shutterstock_118421803_transmission lines at sunset
By David Stevens

On May 31, 2017, the Ontario Government passed Bill 132, which is intended to implement the Government’s promised Fair Hydro Plan (discussed in earlier posts, here, here and here). The main part of Bill 132 is the Ontario Fair Hydro Plan Act, 2017, which is included as Schedule I and is referred to as the Fair Hydro Act, 2017 .

As discussed earlier, the Fair Hydro Plan will lead to an immediate 25% reduction in electricity bills as of July 1, 2017. This is to be achieved through refinancing a portion of the Global Adjustment, shifting the cost of the Ontario Electricity Support Program and Rural or Remote Rate Protection Program (RRRP) to be funded from taxpayer dollars and rebating the provincial portion of the HST. On June 15, 2017, the OEB posted a lengthy article explaining the ways that Fair Hydro Act, 2017 will affect different parts of electricity bills, starting this summer. "

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/05/24/hydro-rate-cut-will-cost-ontario-at-least-45-billion

So Ontario messed up royally by getting sucked into the wind scam, and now they are SUBSIDIZING electricity rates to curtail energy poverty!

Wind ain't cheaper!!!

Way to windy Wynne!